One of the 43 amendments passed by Senate Republicans in Thursday’s vote-a-rama was a sop to extremist state legislatures in the west who have been pushing states’ rights bills that would allow the states to sell off the federal public lands within their borders. That’s right, congressional Republicans—federal representatives—want to allow states to seize and sell off the nation’s heritage.

U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) amendment, which passed by a vote of 51 to 49, is now part of the Senate’s nonbinding budget resolution. The proposal would support and fund state efforts—which many argue are unconstitutional—to seize and sell America’s public lands. These include all national forests, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, historic sites, and national monuments.Murkowski’s amendment, which would need further legislation to become law, follows a similar proposal from House Natural Resources Committee Chair Rob Bishop (R-UT) to spend $50 million of taxpayer dollars to fund the sale or transfer of U.S. public lands to states.

That’s right—they want to use our money to fund the loss of million and millions of acres of public land. That’s not a popular position out here in the West, where 59 percent of voters are opposed to this transfer. Westerners are also okay with the federal government, for the most part: “approval ratings for the Bureau of Land Management—48 percent approve—the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service—73 percent approve—the U.S. Forest Service—73 percent approve—and the National Park Service—76 percent approve.” A whopping 94 percent of people reported that their last visit to a national public land was a positive experience. That 94 percent would be outraged if they were blocked from accessing those lands in the future by fences and no trespassing signs.

That’s a point outdoor groups have been making in fighting state efforts in Colorado, Idaho and Montana and the rest of the West. This comment by a Montana outfitter, Addrien Marx, really sums it up: “Montanans flatly reject any effort to privatize lands that belong to all Americans and provide the backbone to a $3 billion state outdoor economy, an economy that keeps small towns like mine alive.”

That goes for the vast majority of Westerners who aren’t Cliven Bundy. Access to public lands drives our economies, not to mention the way of life for many. Just something else Republicans want to destroy.

Comments

That’s not what this is about at all. The states are not going to sell off all the federal land, if any at all. They are aiming at control of the land. Currently the federal government owns the land. The transfer would go to the states owning the land as it should be. Instead of a “National Park”, it would become a “State Park”. More than likely the land would stay in the state’s control rather than being sold off. Remember, the federal government also has the power to sell of the land as well.

Back in the early 80s the last undeveloped Pueblo Land Parcel was sold off to private developers who promptly built University Town Centre where old oaks had fed off a nearly year-round creek. That’s what they called a huge mall back in those days, a “town center.” Today it is called “a village.” The bullshit just gets thicker and thicker.
For instance, above, where Super Patriot MikeM from 1776 predicts “states are not going to sell off all the federal land, if any at all.” He knows this. Somehow. Professional Libertarian Brian Brady, below, want us to sell off federal lands and their mineral rights so that we can lower our U.S. debt and thus forever ensure the the super-rich don’t have to pay their taxes and support for desperate human being is entrusted to…?
Did you guys wake up with these ideas, or did your next door neighbor with the pit bull and open carry permit coach you?

It’s not feasible to suspect the state will sell off all the federal land once they obtain ownership. The legislation suggests that the State of Nevada will own the land in the same manner as the Feds did. Sure the state has the power to sell the land to private owners, but so does the federal government. Why you believe the Feds has/will never do this is beyond me. The Federal government does not need to own 85% of the state of Nevada. That land belongs to the people of Nevada and that’s exactly what the proposed legislation is trying to accomplish.

Btw. There’s no such thing as an “open carry permit”. And what do you have against pit bull owners?

You’re right, Mr. 1776, California outlawed open carry in Oct. 2012. There are no permits to do so outside of tiny rural counties. There’s a lawsuit lodged against the prohibition, so there’s still a chance you can one day wear iron on your belt and live here. Of course, Nevada is probably different, as Cliven Bundy made quickly known back when all those guns were aimed at federal agents.
What I have against pit bull owners is the attack history of the breed. The breed was bread to bite and it’s a macho thing to train the breed to attack, macho, like open carry.
Finally, I don’t believe state and local governments have been nearly so retentive of public lands as the Feds. The selling off of the last Pueblo Parcel by the city of San Diego is one of the reasons I doubt local politicos can resist the campaign money of developers looking for prime open land to profit from; I think it’s a bit tougher to bribe the Feds. Enjoy California, while you’re here.

Luckily for me, I live in Missouri where it is not an issue to open carry. No permit required for that. You do need a permit to conceal carry, which is what I along with thousands of others in my state prefer. I believe you are misinformed about those that own pitbulls and carry firearms. Most people do not own pitbulls as an attack dog. In fact, the pitbull has one of the best temperaments in the canine world. And carrying a firearm has nothing to do with being macho at all. Police officers carry firearms and I’m assuming you don’t have a problem with that? Do you think cops carry guns to be “macho”?

“I think it’s a bit tougher to bribe the Feds.”
Lol. That’s a good one. ;)

Also, I forgot to add that the group associated with Cliven Bundy NEVER pointed their firearms at federal agents. On the contrary, it was the other way around. Here’s a tip, the mainstream media lies to you, and there is an agenda behind it.

Living in Missouri? I feel your pain, Mr. 1776.
There were photographs that made their way around the world of militias attracted to Bundy’s ranch who also assembled on a bridge and aimed their long guns at federal agents. The dog you love was and is being bred to bite through cart tires. Mr. 1776, the world is not what you want to understand, you want it to understand you.

Oh, I’m not upset about where I live. Although there’s not much to do here, at least I know I’m more free here than in California.

And you’re referring to the picture of the militia man who got into firing position during the tense standoff where federal agents had already pointed their firearms at UNARMED protesters and threatening to shoot them if they advanced. This was right before the fed stand down in which they released the cattle. OF COURSE the militia were ready to fire. The Feds were threatening to shoot first. How is it that a federal agent is allowed to point a gun at unarmed protesters if they feel threatened, but a citizen is not allowed to point a gun at a federal agent pointing a gun and threatening to shoot at them? I believe the ONLY reason why the Feds didn’t shoot is BECAUSE they KNEW they would take return fire. Those militia men saved lives there.
I don’t own a pitbull myself, but I highly doubt that any pitbulls in the world are actually bred to bite through cart tires. But that is a little off topic I believe.

Bob, I want to be sure your comment on pit bulls was aimed at the owners and not the breed. Pit bulls have a bad reputation because of bad owners and because they are more powerful than other breeds but the breed itself is not the problem. Rottweilers also have a bad reputation for the same reasons and they are great dogs. Bad owners have trained all kinds of dogs to attack but the fault is in the owner, not the breeds.

I’ve twice said the dog was and is being bred to fight and attack. By people. It’s jaws and its musculature seem to me unnatural. My sympathies lie with the people (and their pets) who’ve been injured seriously, not with the people who breed the dog nor, for that matter, with the dog.

Bob, a lot of dogs were originally bred to fight and attack. The term “pit bull” is applied to a number of types of dogs. They were originally a cross between terriers and bull dogs. The musculature and jaws come from the bulldog breed, which is a breed that no one finds intimidating. I also sympathize with people and pets who have been attacked and I also have no sympathy for those who train these dogs to be aggressive. I do have sympathy for any dog that has been subject to those kinds of people. One study I came across was about the owners of pit bulls and it concluded that the owners were 10 times more likely to have a criminal record that owners of other breeds. It’s the people, not the dogs.

For some reason, there was no Reply button for your last comment “Guns don’t kill people..” so I’m using this Reply button to ask what that meant. It seems you are somehow comparing a living, breather creature with an inanimate object and I don’ see the connection unless you are saying I’m using the same argument that gun advocates use. If so, I would not consider that a fair comparison.

“After he became President in 1901, (Theodore) Roosevelt used his authority to protect wildlife and public lands by creating the U.S. Forest Service and establishing 51 Federal Bird Reservations, 4 National Game Preserves, 150 National Forests, 5 National Parks, and enabling the 1906 American Antiquities Act which he used to proclaim 18 National Monuments. During his presidency,Theodore Roosevelt protected approximately 230,000,000 acres of public land.”
Teddy Roosevelt recognized the public good and our national patrimony in protecting these lands. He must have missed the memo about turning our patrimony over to private interests.

“During his presidency,Theodore Roosevelt protected approximately 230,000,000 acres of public land.”

Today, close to three times the acreage is controlled by the federal government== one out of four acres, in this country, is owned/controlled by the federal government. Only 19 million of those acres are connected to legitimate functions of the federal government

Most of that federal land is off limits to campers, hikers, etc–it is used for timber harvesting, energy production, and mining (not legitimate roles of the federal government)….

Even IF recreation were a legitimate role of the federal government (it isn’t), 2/3 of the acreage could be sold or leased and the federal debt could be eliminated in five years.

Managing our natural resources is not a role of the federal government? That position would be funny if it weren’t so dangerous. So OK–turn the mining rights in Nevada over to the 5 largest mining corporations doing business there. “Three of the five largest mines in Nevada are foreign-owned. The second largest mine in the world, and the most profitable mine in the world, is owned by Barrick corporation, based in Canada. This single mine will exceed $1 billion in profits in 2012, having reaped $500 million in the second quarter and $313 million in the third quarter of 2012 alone.
• Barrick pays next to nothing in taxes on the huge windfall profits from the world’s most profitable gold mine—paying a mere 1% on gross production value in taxes to Nevada’s General Fund in 2010, according to the state’s 2010-11 net proceeds of minerals tax (NPOM) bulletin.”
After the mining resources are depleted, then??
And by the way, the feds pay mining royalties to states. Nevada ranked 10th in receipt of royalties.

Brian, who has declared “timber harvesting, energy production and mining… not legitimate roles of the federal government”? I mean, besides you. As for energy production, I think the Tennessee Valley Authority proved more trustworthy and efficient than Sempra/SDG&E. That government energy project served a multi-state area and was a huge success. You can get away with these declarations of fact only so long as you’ve got some evidence. You’re throwing around the selling of 2/3 of acreage and ending the federal debt in five years as if you’ve seen the numbers.

Laughable number Brian Brady. I believe you should cite that figure of $2 trillion per year. What is immoral and irresponsible is you blurting out ridiculous figures like that. Perhaps you should consider applying for work at Faux news.

Brain Brady is broken. Article 1, Sec.8 of the U.S. Constitution contains no reference to land and federal ownership to it. I suppose you might want to talk about that business of unelaborated powers belonging to the state.

As an Avid hiker and camper I do not want to see any changes in the structure that could result in the selling off of our precious wildlife to a corporation that could build a mall or exclusive lodging for the wealthy to enjoy. This seems like something that should be left alone. The Parks system has functioned fine for over a decade, just because it may shed a Government job doesn’t make it right. Teddy was right!

For starters, I am independent voter but more or less a lifetime Democrat. I’m not advocating for the Republican action but this story is much more complex than this. Here is a link that explains the history of Nevada’s statehood and the promise the federal government made and broke. A number of other states had the same thing happen to them and have successfully sued to force the federal government to live up to its original promises. This is not to say any exchange of lands should not be very carefully watched.

Steven Miller, who authored the article you cited Geoff, is the Senior Vice President of the Nevada Policy Research Institute (NPRI). This is how NPRI describes its focus:
“The Nevada Policy Research Institute is a free-market think tank that seeks private solutions to public challenges facing Nevada, the West and the nation. The Institute’s primary areas of focus are education and fiscal policy, with the goal of advancing free-market principles in both.” The Nevada Journal is published by NPRI.
If the issue is complex, it is not in the way presented by the Nevada Journal. And for fwiw, a discussion of broken compacts probably should include what happened to the Native Americans who lived in Nevada for thousands of years before the arrival of Europeans.

I wasn’t advocating for the source of the information but the history is important. When I originally read about this, I did more reading and the crux of the story is not inaccurate. I just wanted to bring in some more information that I think should be considered.

What happened to the Native Americans is one of the two most shameful parts of our history. Maybe if and when some of the federal lands are released, the descendants would benefit as a way to make some amends.

The argument Nevada is making and other states have made is that the state derives no tax revenue from federal lands. They probably sold that land off to gain some tax revenue. According to one source, 84% of Nevada is owned by the Federal government leaving tax revenue on only 16% to support the state. Can you imagine California in the same boat? Their argument is hard to refute. The devil will be in the details as to how the land is returned and sold off, if ever, of course.

You are correct that Nevada has no personal or corporate income tax. The purpose of this is to try and attract people to their state. There are fewer people in Nevada than there are in San Diego County. In order to generate income, they legalized gambling and prostitution, which seem to me to be pretty desperate measures. It does have a sales tax from 6.85% to 8.1% depending on the city or county. There are other taxes as well. But how much can you generate from such a small population that can only occupy 16% of the state? I have to respectfully disagree that Nevada’s revenue problems have nothing to do with federal land ownership.

I don’t know about all of them, but I know that many of the states want the land to sell mineral, fracking and drilling rights. The lands as they are now are national parks, landmarks, monuments, forests and such and are heavily protected from development and drilling incursion. While a Republican controlled Congress might try very hard to sell these lands, it would be much more difficult on a federal level to do so, due to national consensus/public opinion being far more influential and powerful than single state public influence, and due to federal statutes and legislation being far more complex. So I don’t think you can say the federal government could sell the lands just as easily as states could, nor is the federal government just as likely to sell them. The federal government is far wealthier than any state government and has no motivation to sell the land for rights or to developers.

I Live in Pennsylvania where all of the public lands are controlled by the state and all you have to do is look what is happening to ” Our land ” as worded here … Allegheny National Forest for instance has been riddled with wells which go un cared for when they are finished with them . It is very rapidly getting worse with the now fracking technique . Many of the prime camping spots that I used to go to are now over-run with the stench and sound of wells .